Final answer:
The best action for the press in a libel suit is case-dependent. The press could settle, fight the case with legal help, or file a counterclaim option (4). High-profile cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have set precedents for higher burdens of proof on public figures in libel cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the context of a libel suit, the best course of action for the press depends on various factors including the specifics of the case and the likelihood of proving innocence. Historically, courts have set a higher bar for public figures to claim libel as established by the precedent set in New York Times v. Sullivan.
This landmark case requires public figures to demonstrate 'actual malice' or 'reckless disregard' for the truth when bringing a libel case against a publisher.
Given the complexities involved in defamation law and the significant implications for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, there is no single 'best' thing the press should do in a libel suit. Strategies may vary, from attempting to get a case before a jury, settling out of court to avoid prolonged battles and negative publicity, hiring competent legal representation, or filing a counterclaim if appropriate.
Filing a counterclaim, specifically, can be seen as a defensive tactic but might not always be the best approach — it could escalate the situation or appear retaliatory. The option to settle out of court is often chosen to minimize costs and avoid negative media exposure.
Employing a high-profile lawyer can also be beneficial, drawing upon their expertise and public image. However, choosing to get the case before a jury relies on the assumption that the public trusts the press, which may not always hold and can be a gamble.